[Talk-hr] zračne snimke
sjecam se da je netko spominjao zracne snimke , tj. njihovo dobivanje. naletio sam na ovaj link http://brooxes.com/ zracne snimke pomocu zmaja :D ___ Talk-hr mailing list Talk-hr@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-hr
Re: [OSM-talk] Potlatch 1.3
2009/11/25 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org Hi, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote: El Martes, 24 de Noviembre de 2009, Frederik Ramm escribió: Maybe ~= 100km, but == 60 nm. Am I the only one who has read that as 60 nanometers? No, a certain Martin K. has already reported the same. I'd say it depends on context; nm is often, if sloppily, used in aviation at least, but since sub-meter precision isn't required there, nobody will misread it. +1. It's hard to misread and if you think instead of reading like a computer you will get it, stil it literally reads nanometer, while Nautical Miles officially should abbr. NM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautical_mile (they also say *M*, *Nm* or *nmi) *but I wouldn't use Nm either, as this is the official abbr. for energy (Newton metres =Joule). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Bridge on Hiking Trails
Was mapping a few hiking trails with foot-only bridges on the trail and could not figure out a way to mark these bridge since the only bridge waypoint needs the same parameters as a highway. Any pointers on how to do this best? Regards, Shalabh ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Mapping everything as areas
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason's diary entry last week (http://j.mp/8ESP8o) stired my interest. Using a few examples, he showed how mapping everything as an area - or as a volume - makes ultimate sense. Should we go for it now ? Mapping the crossing of two roads, four cycleways and four sidewalks all as surfaces requires about twenty times as many nodes as mapping the crossing of two linear roads. That is a hefty increase in complexity, especially when having to deal with the modification of existing ways. Should that be put forward as a best practice ? When dealing with pedestrian plazas and their surroundings, the value added by area mapping makes it worthwhile, but for more standard street grids I'm not sure if that should be a priority. My geeky nitpicky self makes me want to do it, but maybe I should focus my energy somewhere else where it would be more useful. And maintaining that complexity may be more costly than what we have now. So what is your opinion ? Generalized area mapping is the future, but should we wholeheartedly embrace it right now or wait for more sophisticated tools for maintaining it and a clearer business case ? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping everything as areas
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:11:29 +0100, Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org wrote: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason's diary entry last week (http://j.mp/8ESP8o) stired my interest. Using a few examples, he showed how mapping everything as an area - or as a volume - makes ultimate sense. Should we go for it now ? Not really. At least not this or next year. That is the realm of city-planing where you need to know the number of stones to pave a sidewalk. We have a road-map. And...btw..nowhere near the accuracy required to map the width of sidewalks, space between sidewalk and road,... Marcus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bridge on Hiking Trails
On 25 Nov 2009, at 11:45, Shalabh wrote: Was mapping a few hiking trails with foot-only bridges on the trail and could not figure out a way to mark these bridge since the only bridge waypoint needs the same parameters as a highway. Any pointers on how to do this best? on the way use highway=footway; bridge=yes; layer=1. Shaun ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping everything as areas
2009/11/25 Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason's diary entry last week (http://j.mp/8ESP8o) stired my interest. Using a few examples, he showed how mapping everything as an area - or as a volume - makes ultimate sense. Should we go for it now ? Mapping the crossing of two roads, four cycleways and four sidewalks all as surfaces requires about twenty times as many nodes as mapping the crossing of two linear roads. That is a hefty increase in complexity, especially when having to deal with the modification of existing ways. Should that be put forward as a best practice ? When dealing with pedestrian plazas and their surroundings, the value added by area mapping makes it worthwhile, but for more standard street grids I'm not sure if that should be a priority. My geeky nitpicky self makes me want to do it, but maybe I should focus my energy somewhere else where it would be more useful. And maintaining that complexity may be more costly than what we have now. So what is your opinion ? Generalized area mapping is the future, but should we wholeheartedly embrace it right now or wait for more sophisticated tools for maintaining it and a clearer business case ? It is very interesting question. I like to do micro mapping myself and I have thought lot of business uses for it, but more or less I see it as evolutionary thing. First of all, for area I map I would like to see generalized stuff which is useful now - roads with proper tagging and directions, bus stops, public transport routes, house numbers, etc. This is what I would call first level. Second would be add paths and sizes of the roads like this. And third would be area based mapping mentioned in your message. I would like to see first level completed for 80% for selected region before moving to second and third. Also resource issues (high resolution ortphotos, sathotos, local plans) plays a role if micro mapping is possible for this region. Cheers, Peter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bridge on Hiking Trails
Shalabh writes: Was mapping a few hiking trails with foot-only bridges on the trail and could not figure out a way to mark these bridge since the only bridge waypoint needs the same parameters as a highway. Any pointers on how to do this best? Sure. Any bridgey thing can be tagged bridge=yes. You will almost certainly need to split the way at the bridge abutments. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bridge on Hiking Trails
Dont think my question was specific enough. I am using JOSM for this and using highway tag means giving speed limits. I am using the path=hiking trail for the trail and would ideally need a bridge attribute 'yes' within the hiking trail. Regards, Shalabh On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: Shalabh writes: Was mapping a few hiking trails with foot-only bridges on the trail and could not figure out a way to mark these bridge since the only bridge waypoint needs the same parameters as a highway. Any pointers on how to do this best? Sure. Any bridgey thing can be tagged bridge=yes. You will almost certainly need to split the way at the bridge abutments. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bridge on Hiking Trails
JOSM does not give me that option of a bridge under hiking trail, atleast not while using the presets. If I use the highway tag with a bridge, consider this. I have a hiking trail marked as an 'demanding alpine hiking' 50 km from any humanity and then I have a bridge tagged as highway in the middle of it. Am I missing something here? Regards, Shalabh On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org wrote: Shalabh wrote: using highway tag means giving speed limits. You don't have to - it is optional. I am using the path=hiking trail for the trail and would ideally need a bridge attribute 'yes' within the hiking trail. Add the bridge=yes tag - it works just fine for that. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bridge on Hiking Trails
Shalabh wrote: using highway tag means giving speed limits. You don't have to - it is optional. I am using the path=hiking trail for the trail and would ideally need a bridge attribute 'yes' within the hiking trail. Add the bridge=yes tag - it works just fine for that. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bridge on Hiking Trails
Shalabh wrote: JOSM does not give me that option of a bridge under hiking trail, atleast not while using the presets. If I use the highway tag with a bridge, consider this. I have a hiking trail marked as an 'demanding alpine hiking' 50 km from any humanity and then I have a bridge tagged as highway in the middle of it. Am I missing something here? Yes. You don't have to use the presets to tag a feature. You can just type the tags in by hand. Which version of JOSM are you using? In JOSM build 2255, the latest tested version, the footway preset does have a bridge attribute. You may need to get a newer version. -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bridge on Hiking Trails
Shalabh shalabh.w at gmail.com writes: JOSM does not give me that option of a bridge under hiking trail, atleast not while using the presets. Forget the presets, you can tag how ever you want in OSM. Split your trail from both ends of the bridge, select that part and add tag bridge=yes with the + button of JOSM. Or do the same with Potlatch. -Jukka Rahkonen- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bridge on Hiking Trails
On 25/11/2009 14:45, Shalabh wrote: JOSM does not give me that option of a bridge under hiking trail, atleast not while using the presets. If I use the highway tag with a bridge, consider this. I have a hiking trail marked as an 'demanding alpine hiking' 50 km from any humanity and then I have a bridge tagged as highway in the middle of it. Am I missing something here? If you use the JOSM preset Highways- Streets - Bridge, it doesn't change the highway tag. So first choose Highways - Ways - Demanding mountain hiking. That will add the tags for highway=path and sac_scale=demanding_mountain_hiking. Then choose the bridge preset - it will still have the tags for path and hiking, plus it will also have the tag for bridge=yes. Though its probably easier/quicker just to manually add the bridge=yes tag, without bothering with the presets. Craig ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Osm2SpatiaLite ?
Hi, Has anybody written a tool like osm2pgsql for importing OSM data directly into SpatiaLite database? Alternatively, are there plans to make an OSM driver for ogr2ogr? -Jukka Rahkonen- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping everything as areas
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 13:11, Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org wrote: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason's diary entry last week (http://j.mp/8ESP8o) stired my interest. Using a few examples, he showed how mapping everything as an area - or as a volume - makes ultimate sense. Should we go for it now ? It's good to see that I've stirred up some discussion on the issue, that was the intent. Generally speaking if you or anyone else wants to go for something topical with OpenStreetMap that interests you should just do it, whether that something mapping highways, mountain ranges or everything as an area. If you pick your tags carefully you can add areas to everything in your city and not clash with anyone else's use of the data. If you want to experiment with this you can do so now by editing e.g. Rottnest island, it's small and has z23 imagery from NearMap you can use: http://osm.org/go/swwdZ5u-- However I agree with others in this thread that this isn't something we should be generally recommending to people. For most uses of the map it's just fine to have points and lines to represent POIs and ways. It's only if you want to do fringe things like accurately model a pedestrian intersection that area mapping gives you anything tangible for your efforts. It's also worth pointing out that we're already doing area mapping, just not for everything. We try to map things like landuse, buildings, sports pitches etc. as areas, mapping smaller and smaller things as areas is a natural progression from what we're currently doing. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping everything as areas
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org wrote: Mapping the crossing of two roads, four cycleways and four sidewalks all as surfaces requires about twenty times as many nodes as mapping the crossing of two linear roads. That is a hefty increase in complexity, especially when having to deal with the modification of existing ways. Should that be put forward as a best practice ? Isn't it better in most situations to have both (ways and areas) rather than just one or the other? At an intersection, yes, there is one squarish section of road that I am capable of traveling on in any spot in any direction. But the actual paths of travel through that intersection form intersecting lines, not areas. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bridge on Hiking Trails
You don't have to fill in *anything* in a preset. If you don't, then all of the optional stuff is left out and you only get the bridge=yes tag, which is useful if you've forgotten. Otherwise, you can just add it as an attribute. The typing completion makes it very easy. Click on Add, type b and bridge will probably come up. Then hit tab, type y and yes will probably come up. If not, then your currently downloaded data doesn't have any bridges yet. Type it out completely and the next one will complete. Shalabh writes: JOSM does not give me that option of a bridge under hiking trail, atleast not while using the presets. If I use the highway tag with a bridge, consider this. I have a hiking trail marked as an 'demanding alpine hiking' 50 km from any humanity and then I have a bridge tagged as highway in the middle of it. Am I missing something here? Regards, Shalabh On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org wrote: Shalabh wrote: using highway tag means giving speed limits. You don't have to - it is optional. I am using the path=hiking trail for the trail and would ideally need a bridge attribute 'yes' within the hiking trail. Add the bridge=yes tag - it works just fine for that. JOSM does not give me that option of a bridge under hiking trail, atleast not while using the presets. If I use the highway tag with a bridge, consider this. I have a hiking trail marked as an #39;demanding alpine hiking#39; 50 km from any humanity and then I have a bridge tagged as highway in the middle of it. Am I missing something here?br brRegards,brShalabhbrbrdiv class=gmail_quoteOn Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Jean-Marc Liotier span dir=ltrlt;a href=mailto:j...@liotier.org;j...@liotier.org/agt;/span wrote:brblockquote class=gmail_quote style=border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex; div class=imShalabh wrote:br blockquote class=gmail_quote style=border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex; using highway tag means giving speed limits.br /blockquote br/div You don#39;t have to - it is optional.div class=imbr br blockquote class=gmail_quote style=border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex; I am using the path=hiking trail for the trail and would ideally need a bridge attribute #39;yes#39; within the hiking trail.br /blockquote br/div Add the quot;bridge=yesquot; tag - it works just fine for that.br br /blockquote/divbr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Osm2SpatiaLite ?
On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 15:16 +, Jukka Rahkonen wrote: Hi, Has anybody written a tool like osm2pgsql for importing OSM data directly into SpatiaLite database? If you want to have a go yourself you could look at: http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/1371 This copied the postgres code and changed it to use sqlite, but did not use SpatiaLite. The patch did not get applied as-is because I was unhappy at the code duplication, but it might get you started. Alternatively, are there plans to make an OSM driver for ogr2ogr? Not that I know of. I'm sure you could fallback to some path like: osm - postgres - shapefile - spatialite Jon ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping everything as areas
Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason's diary entry last week (http://j.mp/8ESP8o) stired my interest. Using a few examples, he showed how mapping everything as an area - or as a volume - makes ultimate sense. Should we go for it now ? Imo, area mapping is too advanced for now. After all, - it's quite hard to get the data (several width measurements required) - there aren't many practical applications - you can't work around some editing problems with shared nodes anymore - we don't have software support for it As the next step for areas where most of the basics are done, I'd rather start lane mapping. It has some very attractive use cases (detailed routing instructions for cars, routing and maps for pedestrians/bicycles) and it's relatively easy to gather the data (you just look at the street, no tools required - not even a GPS). Actually, I don't believe most mappers will be able and willing to produce data that is more precise than what can represented with width tag + lane info any time soon. Of course, if you *want* to map areas in addition to linear road representations, just do it. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bridge on Hiking Trails
Shaun McDonald wrote: on the way use highway=footway; bridge=yes; layer=1. I didn't think the layer=1 was necessary when there's only one bridge - it defaults to display above other objects. I only use in there a multiple bridges crossing each other. Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping everything as areas
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Isn't it better in most situations to have both (ways and areas) rather than just one or the other? At an intersection, yes, there is one squarish section of road that I am capable of traveling on in any spot in any direction. But the actual paths of travel through that intersection form intersecting lines, not areas. This raises another interesting question, that is, whether highways=* should *necessarily* express logical paths of travel, or whether they are just a convenient way to represent an *area* used as a path of travel, as a placeholder for future, more detailed mapping (e.g. as an area). I'm not convinced that, say, a road should be mapped as *both* a way and an area - I don't see any need for that. But I guess you could map an intersection as an area and the paths of travel that pass through it as ways - if you want... Mixing and matching - that is, using *whatever most appropriately captures reality* in that particular case - is part of the beauty of OSM. That said, in reality, features that are 2D *are* areas, and should *eventually* be mapped as such in OSM. But I don't think there's any rush. Using ways with width=* is a good, quick, interim solution. Where you have the time, sure, go ahead and map areas. I do think we will need some more discussion and documentation about mapping areas - remember the debate about that keeps coming up, about whether adjacent areas should share nodes? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping everything as areas
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not convinced that, say, a road should be mapped as *both* a way and an area - I don't see any need for that. If the road doesn't have a constant width you basically need an area. Now, how are you going to indicate a direction of travel on an area? I guess you could come up with some way to do it, but you'd basically be defining a way. That said, in reality, features that are 2D *are* areas, and should *eventually* be mapped as such in OSM. But I don't think there's any rush. Using ways with width=* is a good, quick, interim solution. Where you have the time, sure, go ahead and map areas. I agree. Even if you just map the area and don't put any tags on it (or put note=some textual description of what you just mapped). I do think we will need some more discussion and documentation about mapping areas - remember the debate about that keeps coming up, about whether adjacent areas should share nodes? I didn't know that was up for debate. I thought the consensus was that they should not only share nodes, but they should share ways as well. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping everything as areas
2009/11/25 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason's diary entry last week (http://j.mp/8ESP8o) stired my interest. Using a few examples, he showed how mapping everything as an area - or as a volume - makes ultimate sense. Should we go for it now ? Imo, area mapping is too advanced for now. After all, - it's quite hard to get the data (several width measurements required) well depends on the quality you want to achieve (can do it with aerial images just now) and on the sources you have (you can use open sources like in Germany Bebauungsplan, site plans you own the rights, etc.). - there aren't many practical applications there is one key application: rendering - you can't work around some editing problems with shared nodes anymore don't understand what you intend - we don't have software support for it you simply add area=yes to your closed way. The only thing: don't delete the current centre-ways. Maybe it would be best to tag the road-areas as landuse=road instead of highway=something to avoid conflicts. As the next step for areas where most of the basics are done, I'd rather start lane mapping. It has some very attractive use cases (detailed routing instructions for cars, routing and maps for pedestrians/bicycles) and it's relatively easy to gather the data (you just look at the street, no tools required - not even a GPS). yes sure, but A doesn't exclude B. Actually, I don't believe most mappers will be able and willing to produce data that is more precise than what can represented with width tag + lane info any time soon. no problem, who wants to do it, can do it. Look here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.300723lon=11.427789zoom=18layers=B000FTF Of course, if you *want* to map areas in addition to linear road representations, just do it. +1 cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping everything as areas
2009/11/25 Anthony o...@inbox.org I didn't know that was up for debate. I thought the consensus was that they should not only share nodes, but they should share ways as well. no, I don't think that's a good idea as the resulting multipolygons make the situation unnecessarily complicated. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bridge on Hiking Trails
2009/11/25 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com Shaun McDonald wrote: on the way use highway=footway; bridge=yes; layer=1. I didn't think the layer=1 was necessary when there's only one bridge - it defaults to display above other objects. I only use in there a multiple bridges crossing each other. AFAIK most mappers add a layer-tag on every bridge/tunnel. It might be redundant but it surely isn't harming. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bridge on Hiking Trails
Dave F. schrieb: on the way use highway=footway; bridge=yes; layer=1. I didn't think the layer=1 was necessary when there's only one bridge - it defaults to display above other objects. I only use in there a multiple bridges crossing each other. I don't trust any more on defaults: about 1 year ago the default of oneway=yes on Motorway and/or motorway_link was changed. And: if multiple objects are above each other you need a clear description of that. = there are NO defaults for layers on bridges. The output of the renderers is just random! Best regards, Michael. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bridge on Hiking Trails
I think I may understand your confusion here. You may think of highway to mean a high-speed paved road on which motor vehicles travel. But within the context of OSM, the highway tag is much more general purpose. Virtually all formal and informal roads and paths should be tagged highway, everything from limited access motorways, to paved bike paths, to alpine hiking trails. The value given to the highway tag determines what kind of path it is. Take a look at the wiki for more information: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway -Scott On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 6:45 AM, Shalabh shalab...@gmail.com wrote: JOSM does not give me that option of a bridge under hiking trail, atleast not while using the presets. If I use the highway tag with a bridge, consider this. I have a hiking trail marked as an 'demanding alpine hiking' 50 km from any humanity and then I have a bridge tagged as highway in the middle of it. Am I missing something here? Regards, Shalabh On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org wrote: Shalabh wrote: using highway tag means giving speed limits. You don't have to - it is optional. I am using the path=hiking trail for the trail and would ideally need a bridge attribute 'yes' within the hiking trail. Add the bridge=yes tag - it works just fine for that. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Scott Atwood The hill isn't in the way, it is the way. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Tagging for Seasonal/Dry Streams
I'm currently doing mapping for the island of Maui in Hawai'i. The leeward side of this island has a large number of streams that are dry nearly all the time, only containing water during periods of heavy rain. On maps, these streams are often depicted as dashed or dotted blue lines. Is there any existing tagging convention for such seasonal or dry streams? A typical example of such a dry stream can be seen in the satellite images at this location: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=20.62645lon=-156.20935zoom=17layers=B000FTF -Scott -- Scott Atwood The hill isn't in the way, it is the way. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping everything as areas
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/11/25 Anthony o...@inbox.org I didn't know that was up for debate. I thought the consensus was that they should not only share nodes, but they should share ways as well. no, I don't think that's a good idea as the resulting multipolygons make the situation unnecessarily complicated. Wow. I hope you're in the minority on that one, because now that I discovered multipolygon relations there's no way I'm going back to mapping the exact same line three times (e.g. to represent a park adjacent to a residential area separated by a fence). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging for Seasonal/Dry Streams
See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/National_Hydrography_Dataset http://www.mail-archive.com/newb...@openstreetmap.org/msg03521.html It sems 'obvious' :-) that this should be waterway=stream stream=intermittent pgpvyQUE20BJu.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping everything as areas
Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb: 2009/11/25 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason's diary entry last week (http://j.mp/8ESP8o) stired my interest. Using a few examples, he showed how mapping everything as an area - or as a volume - makes ultimate sense. Should we go for it now ? Imo, area mapping is too advanced for now. After all, - it's quite hard to get the data (several width measurements required) well depends on the quality you want to achieve (can do it with aerial images just now) [...] That's an additional requirement, though, so it's not possible everywhere. - there aren't many practical applications there is one key application: rendering For most maps (or most zoom levels of most maps), it's not that useful to use real outlines for ways. A linear abstraction with exaggerated (and possibly importance-dependent) widths is common and usually more practical. - you can't work around some editing problems with shared nodes anymore don't understand what you intend There have been several discussions whether area borders - such as landuse areas - should use the same nodes as streets they are adjacent to. Iirc, some participants complained that sharing nodes causes editing problems - making it hard to select individual ways, requiring the relatively unknown unglue operations when editing the ways etc. With streets represented as areas, the way=middle-of-the-road argument wouldn't apply, so we probably would have to start dealing with overlapping ways and/or shared nodes. (I'm not necessarily saying this is a valid concern, I just remember it being raised. I assumed that shared nodes would remind everyone of those recurring discussions - apparently, that wasn't correct.) - we don't have software support for it you simply add area=yes to your closed way. Which won't be supported properly by renderers (for many highway types - and not at all for directional features like steps or oneways) or routing applications (it might use the outline of the area, which is equivalent to ignoring the area=yes). A simple area=yes could even be considered wrong. I'd interpret a highway=* area with area=yes is an area where there's no regulated direction of traffic. There should be an easy way to identify areas which are outlines of ways so you can decide not to draw these. After all, abstracting roads to lines with uniform, non-realistic width can be a sensible design decision. (See above.) Even if you believe it would be correct, there would still be problems with directional features, left/right/forward/backward tags etc. Therefore, I think this statement is very important: The only thing: don't delete the current centre-ways. Maybe it would be best to tag the road-areas as landuse=road instead of highway=something to avoid conflicts. As the next step for areas where most of the basics are done, I'd rather start lane mapping. It has some very attractive use cases (detailed routing instructions for cars, routing and maps for pedestrians/bicycles) and it's relatively easy to gather the data (you just look at the street, no tools required - not even a GPS). yes sure, but A doesn't exclude B. Not at all. I'm just stating my personal preferences. Of course, the perfect solution is to map everything. Actually, I don't believe most mappers will be able and willing to produce data that is more precise than what can represented with width tag + lane info any time soon. no problem, who wants to do it, can do it. Look here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.300723lon=11.427789zoom=18layers=B000FTF That's interesting! Luckily, a single example doesn't prove my most mappers statement wrong yet. ;) Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging for Seasonal/Dry Streams
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Scott Atwood scott.roy.atw...@gmail.comwrote: I'm currently doing mapping for the island of Maui in Hawai'i. The leeward side of this island has a large number of streams that are dry nearly all the time, only containing water during periods of heavy rain. On maps, these streams are often depicted as dashed or dotted blue lines. Is there any existing tagging convention for such seasonal or dry streams? A typical example of such a dry stream can be seen in the satellite images at this location: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=20.62645lon=-156.20935zoom=17layers=B000FTF -Scott I used an 'intermittent=yes' tag for a county-wide import I did. I remember it as being an official tag, but when I can't find the documentation now, so it's likely that I am simply misremembering. There isn't support for the tag from Mapnik or Osmarender, so if there's another tag that does have render support, I'd like to know too. - Dan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping everything as areas
Hi, Anthony wrote: Wow. I hope you're in the minority on that one, because now that I discovered multipolygon relations there's no way I'm going back to mapping the exact same line three times (e.g. to represent a park adjacent to a residential area separated by a fence). That's certainly the way multipolygons are intended to be used - *especially* in situations where there cannot, by definition, be a no man's land between neighbouring polygons, e.g. when talking (most types of) boundaries. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping everything as areas
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/11/25 Anthony o...@inbox.org I didn't know that was up for debate. I thought the consensus was that they should not only share nodes, but they should share ways as well. no, I don't think that's a good idea as the resulting multipolygons make the situation unnecessarily complicated. Wow. I hope you're in the minority on that one, because now that I discovered multipolygon relations there's no way I'm going back to mapping the exact same line three times (e.g. to represent a park adjacent to a residential area separated by a fence). OK, I put that right (as I'm using multipolygons myself quite a lot): it depends on the situation. If the fence (line between the 2 areas) is consisting of a lot of nodes it might be better to use a multipolygon, but if its just 2-3 nodes, I bet you will never be faster with a relation. You will still be creating the first multipolygon when I already finished all polygons ;-) Whew, you scared me. Personally, I mostly use Potlatch, and don't find relations to be much effort at all (and much easier for later editing), but I'm perfectly willing to cooperate with people who do it the other way. Eventually, one day, I guess we'll have to decide, but not until all the editors make one way or the other a piece of cake, and not until a script is in place to convert all the instances of the losing method into the winning method. By that time we'll have every single area of the globe (except maybe the oceans) covered by an area, right? :) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping everything as areas
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: There have been several discussions whether area borders - such as landuse areas - should use the same nodes as streets they are adjacent to. Iirc, some participants complained that sharing nodes causes editing problems - making it hard to select individual ways, requiring the relatively unknown unglue operations when editing the ways etc. With streets represented as areas, the way=middle-of-the-road argument wouldn't apply, so we probably would have to start dealing with overlapping ways and/or shared nodes. I'm one of the ones who objects to landuse areas sharing the same nodes as streets they are adjacent to. But my objection would go away if the street were mapped as an area. Sort of. In my opinion the residential landuse area shouldn't include the sidewalk either, or even the unpaved right of way if there is no sidewalk. Yes, it'd be a pain to edit with overlapping ways and/or shared nodes. But that's why God made multipolygon relations :). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping everything as areas
2009/11/26 Anthony o...@inbox.org losing method into the winning method. By that time we'll have every single area of the globe (except maybe the oceans) covered by an area, right? :) or even by several areas and inside even more boundaries... ;-) cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping everything as areas
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/11/26 Anthony o...@inbox.org losing method into the winning method. By that time we'll have every single area of the globe (except maybe the oceans) covered by an area, right? :) or even by several areas and inside even more boundaries... ;-) Sure, we've gotta have highway=lane (way) inside ground_cover=roadway (area) inside landuse=highway (area) Along with ground_cover=sidewalk; ground_cover=grass; barrier=curb; etc. :) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging for Seasonal/Dry Streams
2009/11/26 Dan Homerick danhomer...@gmail.com: I used an 'intermittent=yes' tag for a county-wide import I did. FWIW, I also use intermittent=yes. Cheers Colin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping everything as areas
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Now, how are you going to indicate a direction of travel on an area? I guess you could come up with some way to do it, but you'd basically be defining a way. Good point. Anyone got ideas on this? Maybe it is indeed necessary to map each highway as a way (to indicate a logical path of travel) as well as an area (to reflect reality!). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping everything as areas
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:40:53 +0200, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Now, how are you going to indicate a direction of travel on an area? I guess you could come up with some way to do it, but you'd basically be defining a way. Good point. Anyone got ideas on this? Maybe it is indeed necessary to map each highway as a way (to indicate a logical path of travel) as well as an area (to reflect reality!). A while ago I had an idea of lane type for osm, which is a directed area. I think a picture will explain it better: http://elanor.mine.nu/daeron/types.png (also includes an area type). The lane type would consist of an ordered list of node pairs. Optionally the first and last pair could contain a null node, to allow mapping a lane that branches off from another. Also maybe other pairs could contain nulls, to avoid unnecessary nodes. That way the area would have a direction, and it would be unnecessary to use ways to indicate the direction in addition to the area. This of course would need pretty major reworking of the database, editors and renderers... Regards Teemu Koskinen ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping everything as areas
On Nov 25, 2009, at 4:40 PM, Roy Wallace wrote: On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Now, how are you going to indicate a direction of travel on an area? I guess you could come up with some way to do it, but you'd basically be defining a way. Good point. Anyone got ideas on this? Maybe it is indeed necessary to map each highway as a way (to indicate a logical path of travel) as well as an area (to reflect reality!). I think it will be necessary to retain both lines and areas, but in different data sets. I think this is true for a lot more than just highways, actually. It also sidesteps some of the geometric gymnastics made necessary by using large-scale geographic data at lower zoom levels. These are two slides from a talk I gave on OpenStreetMap to the North American Cartographic Information Society last month: http://teczno.com/s/3jb http://teczno.com/s/c96 (full talk here: http://teczno.com/s/l05) The first slide shows now-gone image from the Ordnance Survey website illustrating map detail at a number of scales. This thread is about the scales to the right of the illustration, 1:10k or so and below. At that scale, roads aren't lines anymore, they're areas and should be treated as such. You're no longer routing people *along* a road, instead you're moving them through and across the road, into buildings, etc. Stefan Knecht's United Maps is one company that's thinking about data at this scale. OSM data is not suitable for use at 1:10K and below, because it's designed and optimized for typical city scales: 1:250K down to 1:25K. That's a pretty wide range for a single data set, but it's starting to shear a bit. The second slide is a call for help - in order to be usable at and above 1:250K (cities, regions, states), the data will require editing at a different scale, one that simplifies river areas to lines, dual carriageways into single ways, collections of streets into urban polys, shopping areas to points, etc. With the impending release of Natural Earth Vector, we're going to have a really good data set at the far left end of the scale above 1:10m. That leaves a critical gap between 1:10m and 1:250K, quite a wide swath. The use of rasterization libraries like Mapnik and Osmarender papers over this gap somewhat by doing the expensive rendering process just once on the server, but it's slow and redundant. I've done some recent work with OSM that addresses it as vectors and the data is basically useless when you've zoomed out a bit. My sense is that OSM will need to expand its scale coverage in two directions, and possibly develop a concept of trans-scale relations. I've seen this in other vector sets before, e.g. ones that have a layer for lake shapes vs. lake centerlines like Natural Earth promises. Potlatch 1.3 makes it possible to edit down into the 1:1K scale where it would be appropriate to model highways are areas, but the question of travel direction on these highways is irrelevant - if you want to route someone, you use the lower zoom of today's existing OpenStreetMap, which is created at a scale where roads are ways. On the left side of the scale, I think it will be necessary to have two separate, low-scale OSM data sets that use higher-scale renderings as input. These datasets, which could simply be separate instances of OSM, would be much smaller and simpler, and optimized for vector manipulation of large areas. In simple OSM, highways would be single ways with local features such as bridges omitted, local POIs like schools or hospitals would be points, buildings would disappear, etc. In an even lower-scale mini OSM, smaller local roads would simply disappear in favor of built-up areas, trunk roads and motorways would be a single classification, rivers would be lines, most local POIs would be omitted, and so on. The data set / zoom level breakdown might look like this: 6 - Nat. Earth http://osm.org/go/TZNQp-- 7 mini OSMhttp://osm.org/go/TZNQp 8 mini OSMhttp://osm.org/go/TZNQpm- 9 mini OSMhttp://osm.org/go/TZNQp0-- 10 simple OSM http://osm.org/go/TZNQns 11 simple OSM http://osm.org/go/TZNQnsO- 12 simple OSM http://osm.org/go/TZNQnp9-- 13 current OSM http://osm.org/go/TZNQnp9 14 current OSM http://osm.org/go/TZNQp1hY- 15 current OSM http://osm.org/go/TZNQp1hC-- 16 current OSM http://osm.org/go/TZNQp1hC 17 current OSM http://osm.org/go/TZNQp1hC6- 18+ maxi OSMhttp://osm.org/go/TZNQsgND_-- My sense is that such a project would require only the setup of an additional two, lower-capacity OSM servers and probably the creation of a new rendering stylesheet. It'd be interesting to tackle feature equivalence at
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping everything as areas
2009/11/25 Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason's diary entry last week (http://j.mp/8ESP8o) stired my interest. Using a few examples, he showed how mapping everything as an area - or as a volume - makes ultimate sense. Should we go for it now ? The main usage for this that I see would be neat rendering. I'm not saying that's bad, rendering is important. But I think personally I'm going to wait for the real thing, a project to make a 3D model of the whole earth, really our world is not two-dimensional and it seems like a waste of time to put a lot of effort into the intermediate step between the street map and the model of the world. When I started mapping I made a point of adding the storeys count or height info for all buildings I drew with the intent to try a conversion to 3D at some point, later mapsurfer.net made me really happy by rendering the building heights before I had time to implement my idea. But the geeky part tells me it's a band-aid. Google got it with the crowd-sourcing of building models, but I think they don't have enough crowd-sourcing power yet to make the project take off and obviously they don't get it about open licensing and stuff. A couple of years ago there was also a project supported the Madrid municipality, Spain, to build a 3D model of the whole city with textures and stuff, but I don't know what came out of it. Now that microsoft and others have shown demos where they reconstruct models from a huge load of touristic pics or from recording with a special camera on google-street-view-like cars, I think we're close to be able to start such a project, with people building the necessary hardware like they build the RC planes to do aerial photography now, and the armchair mappers crowds filling in the details of the model, that's my vision anyway. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Osm2SpatiaLite ?
Jon Burgess jburgess777 at googlemail.com writes: Alternatively, are there plans to make an OSM driver for ogr2ogr? Not that I know of. I'm sure you could fallback to some path like: osm - postgres - shapefile - spatialite I am doing it as osm - postgres - spatialite by using osm2pgsql for the first conversion and ogr2ogr for the second. I was just thinking that I would rather use only one tool. But I can live this way untill perhaps somebody starts delivering OSM excerpts directly as SpatiaLite database files one day. -Jukka- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bridge on Hiking Trails
2009/11/25 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com: Shaun McDonald wrote: on the way use highway=footway; bridge=yes; layer=1. I didn't think the layer=1 was necessary when there's only one bridge - it defaults to display above other objects. I only use in there a multiple bridges crossing each other. I assume layer is 0 if I don't add the layer tag. Hopefully this is the correct thing to assume because otherwise things will break if I have a bridge with no layer tag and a another bridge with layer=1 crossing (I'd assume the latter is higher than the former, not at the same level) Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Osm2SpatiaLite ?
Hi, I've implemented importing of OSM data into SpatiaLite DB and integrated it successfully with Kosmos map rendering code. SpatiaLite OSM database can be quite fast, but I had to learn a trick or two to reach good performance. I even managed to import the latest UK data into it and it didn't complain too much. I'm planning to release this in Kosmos v3, hopefully sometimes in the spring of 2010. Igor On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Jukka Rahkonen jukka.rahko...@mmmtike.fiwrote: Hi, Has anybody written a tool like osm2pgsql for importing OSM data directly into SpatiaLite database? Alternatively, are there plans to make an OSM driver for ogr2ogr? -Jukka Rahkonen- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bridge on Hiking Trails
2009/11/26 andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com: I assume layer is 0 if I don't add the layer tag. Yes, which is usually anything at ground level. Hopefully this is the correct thing to assume because otherwise things will break if I have a bridge with no layer tag and a another bridge No they won't break, it's just used to order the various ways etc when they are rendered, if there is nothing currently mapped under the bridge the layer tag is basically not used as there will only be one result returned by the query to the database. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping everything as areas
Michal Migurski wrote: I think it will be necessary to retain both lines and areas [..] Maybe lines and areas each serve a different purpose : areas describe the physical layout of the world whereas lines describe navigation paths. So maybe the debate should be re-framed as whether OpenStreetMap wants to be a database limited to navigational uses or a physically correct map. Navigation is a S.M.A.R.T (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Tangible) goal whereas complete description of the physical layout of the world is a more abstract goal To make a workable model, there has to be a degree of abstraction. The question is to chose the right one... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Osm2SpatiaLite ?
Hi, That's great news. I am sure that you will make an easy-to-use configuration system for selecting which features and tags will be imported into database. I am awaiting the next release. -Jukka- Lähettäjä: Igor Brejc [mailto:igor.br...@gmail.com] Lähetetty: 26. marraskuuta 2009 8:27 Vastaanottaja: Rahkonen Jukka Kopio: talk@openstreetmap.org Aihe: Re: [OSM-talk] Osm2SpatiaLite ? Hi, I've implemented importing of OSM data into SpatiaLite DB and integrated it successfully with Kosmos map rendering code. SpatiaLite OSM database can be quite fast, but I had to learn a trick or two to reach good performance. I even managed to import the latest UK data into it and it didn't complain too much. I'm planning to release this in Kosmos v3, hopefully sometimes in the spring of 2010. Igor On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Jukka Rahkonen jukka.rahko...@mmmtike.fi wrote: Hi, Has anybody written a tool like osm2pgsql for importing OSM data directly into SpatiaLite database? Alternatively, are there plans to make an OSM driver for ogr2ogr? -Jukka Rahkonen- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk-nl] Nieuwe Dev
Howdy!, Sinds gisteren middag is de nieuwe dev server in de lucht. De nieuwe dev staat bij oxilion en daarvoor (wederom) onze dank! Het nieuwe (virtuele) beestje draait geen CentOS meer maar Gentoo. Dit omdat we nu iets recentere software kunnen draaien en omdat de productie server ook op gentoo draait zodat we dus een zelfde omgeving hebben. Natuurlijk hebben we niet enkel een dev om te kijken hoe we het renderen van de tiles nog sneller kunnen maken! Maar ook om leuke dingen te doen met OSM data! Mocht je interesse hebben in een account dan moet een mailt aan mij (of Stefan) volstaan! Iedereen veel dev plezier! Groet, --Roeland signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [Talk-de] Wayparts - Ansatz für Fahrspure n, straßenbegleitende Wege etc.
Ich finde das Plugin sehr wichtig! Gut das du dran arbeitest! Gruß Sven Am Samstag, 21. November 2009 12:46:38 schrieb Nils Heuermann: Hallo zusammen, hatte dieses Thema zuvor im Thread Relationen besser als Tags [1] angesprochen; da es inhaltlich aber doch auf etwas anderes abzielt, jetzt als eigener Thread. Hier eine kurze Einleitung: Ziel ist die Erfassung von Fahrspuren, straßenbegleitenden Wegen (Radweg, Bürgersteig) sowie weiteren Straßenteilen wie Parkstreifen, Grünstreifen usw. Zugeordnet/angelegt werden diese als Relationen, die den Weg (oder mehrere zusammenhängende Wege) sowie jeweils einen Start- und Endnode beinhalten. Den Ansatz habe ich im Wiki erläutert, wo es auch ein (noch unfertiges) JOSM-Plugin zur Visualisierung gibt: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:User:Ömmes/Wayparts Im anderen Thread gab es schon ein paar Antworten, die von Tobias greife ich hier jetzt auf: Am Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:51:16 +0100 hat Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de geschrieben: Konzeptionelles: Du kombinierst hier die Angabe über Tag-Präfixe mit der über Relationen. Ein durchaus gangbares Konzept wäre ja auch die Angabe komplett über Tags, also so etwas wie right4:lane_type=footway right4:surface=cobblestone ... - also das, was du mehr oder weniger auch in der wayparts-Relation verwendest. Nur: Warum dann die mit solchen Präfixen versehenen Tags nicht direkt an den Way packen und auf eine Relation verzichten? Für die Verwendung von Relationen spricht für mich folgendes: - Die Tagliste von Ways wird nicht ellenlang - Man hat Geometrie (Way) von der näheren Beschreibung/dem Querschnitt (Relation) getrennt - Man kann mehrere Ways zusammenfassen, zum Beispiel bei Brücken oder wenn sich nur der Straßenname ändert. Die Fahrspuren führen dennoch weiter und sind zentral definiert (keine Redundanz an mehreren Ways - weniger Fehler, wenn man was am Querschnitt ändert). So könnte man evtl. auch eine abknickende Vorfahrt erfassen. - Umgekehrt kann man einen Way in mehrere Bereiche aufteilen, ohne diesen zerstückeln zu müssen, wenn eine Spur hinzukommt oder wegfällt. Falls es um die Vermeidung des Teilens von Ways geht: Wäre es dann nicht besser, eben doch zunächst einmal Tags zu nehmen und diese dann mit einer Eigenschaftsrelation - wie sie in diesem Thread vorgeschlagen wurde - an den Way zu hängen? Denn für Tags, die den ganzen Way betreffen, wäre eine solche ja ohnehin noch separat nötig. Und wenn man eine Eigenschaftsrelation für name=* anlegen kann, dann doch sicher auch für part4:type=*? Klar, das lässt sich natürlich kombinieren. Allerdings sollte man jetzt nicht erst anfangen, Tags zu verwenden und Ways zu spiltten, um diese später dann doch in Relationen auszulagern. Wenn, dann gleich als Relation (sofern sich das als funktioniernde Lösung herausstellt). Ansonsten noch: Könnte man es irgendwie schaffen, die beiden Relation-Typen zusammenzufassen? Abgesehen davon, dass wayparts, wenn ich das richtig verstehe, für den Kernbestand an Weg-Teilen gedacht sind, ist ein waypart doch mehr oder weniger nur ein wayparts mit parts=1? jein ;) Ausschlaggebend war in der Tat die Angabe der Hauptspuren (Kernbestand) im Gegensatz zu einzelnen Spuren. Die Hauptspuren (wayparts) können (derzeit) nur 1x für einen Abschnitt definiert werden und können durch weitere Spuren (waypart) ergänzt werden - das allerdings mehrfach. Vielleicht ist es auch unnötig, diese Unterscheidung anhand des Relations-Typs zu machen - man könnte auch einfach die Tags auswerten, die vorhanden sind. Dann ließe sich evtl. auch sowas machen wie: Füge 2 Abbiegespuren hinzu, wofür man im Moment 2 waypart-Relationen bräuchte. Ansonsten war es für das Schreiben des Plugins erstmal einfacher, diese Unterscheidung zu verwenden, da aus wayparts automatisch mehrere waypart-Elemente erzeugt werden, ein waypart aber direkt verwendet werden kann. Wahl der Begriffe: Subjektiv empfinde ich waypart als etwas merkwürdige Bezeichnung, bin aber kein Muttersprachler. Bin ich auch nicht, daher mag der Begriff nicht korrekt sein. Da Begriffe wie lane, die mir besser gefallen würden, als zu eng aufgefasst werden könnten, habe ich gerade keinen eindeutig besseren Vorschlag. So ging es mir auch, daher bin ich bei waypart hängengeblieben... Viele Grüße und schönes WE! Nils [1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-de/2009-November/058720.html ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
[Talk-de] Fernsehbericht bei planet wissen
Hallo zusammen, gestern kam auf BR-alpha die Planet Wissen-Sendung Die Geheimnisse der Landkarten, in der auch OpenStreetMap vorgestellt wurde. Kai Behnke und Frederik Ramm wirken auch mit. http://www.planet-wissen.de/sendungen/2009/11/24_landkarten.jsp In den dritten Programmen wird die Sendung wiederholt. Gruß, Stefan ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
[Talk-de] Richtung von Relationen
Moin ! ich beschäftige mich gerade ausgiebig mit den Bedarfsumleitungen [1] und da ist die Richtung ziemlich wichtig. Irgendwie habe ich nicht richtig etwas darüber gefunden - kann mir einer weiterhelfen? Ist es tatsächlich die Reihenfolge der Way-Abschnitte?? Gruß Jan :-) [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Germany/Bedarfsumleitung ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Bringdienste, wie taggen?
Andre Hinrichs schrieb: delivery:opening_hours=* delivery:min_cost=* Es gibt an jedem Ort in Deutschland ein sogenanntes Wassertaxi, welches rund um die Uhr open ist und die Anfahrt nur dann in Rechnung stellt, wenn man keine Ware abnimmt. Der Telefonische Sammelruf ist übrigens 112 -jha- ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Fernsehbericht bei planet wissen
Hallo, ich habe zwar die Sendung aufgezeichnet, die Qualität ist aber nicht besonders gut. Stefan Tirkon schrieb: Leider war gemäß meinem http://tvbrowser.org/de/ueber-mainmenu-16.html die letzte Wiederholung schon zum Zweitpunkt des Postings im Gange. ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] layer=0
Carsten Gerlach schrieb: Am Mittwoch 25. November 2009 21:28:00 schrieb Rainer Knaepper: Es gibt hier in der Nähe einen Radweg, der auf einem ehemaligen *Bahndamm* verläuft. Das wäre dann doch eher was für http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:embankment, oder? Korrigiert mich (und das Wiki) wenn ich falsch liege, aber ist ein Embankment nicht ein reiner Flutdamm? Gerade ein Bahndamm kann aber auch nur zur Herstellung einer ebenen Trasse vorhanden sein, weitab von jeglichem Gewässer. Das Wiki sagt: An embankment is an artificial bank raised above the immediately-surrounding land *to redirect or prevent flooding by a river, lake or sea.* Eine Frage noch nebenbei, da ich recht neu in der Mailing-List bin: Ist es in Ordnung, Zitate in Englisch ohne Übersetzung anzugeben? Schließlich sind wir ja in talk-de, und nicht jeder kann Englisch. lg, Stefan ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
[Talk-in] Mapping Party howto document
Hello. We recently had a very good experience getting involved in the OpenStreetMap project through a mapping party. The event was really interesting. As a part of the promotion of OpenStreetMap in and around Kerala, we are planning to organize a series of mapping parties. From the above party, we have learned how to organize a mapping party and created a document on that. The document is here http://geohackers.in/content/howto.html. Please go through it and leave your comments/suggestions. Thank you. -- Sajjad Anwar http://sajjad.in ___ Talk-in mailing list Talk-in@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in
Re: [Talk-in] Mapping Party howto document
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.orgwrote: On Wednesday 25 Nov 2009 8:50:15 pm Sajjad Anwar wrote: We recently had a very good experience getting involved in the OpenStreetMap project through a mapping party. The event was really interesting. As a part of the promotion of OpenStreetMap in and around Kerala, we are planning to organize a series of mapping parties. From the above party, we have learned how to organize a mapping party and created a document on that. The document is here http://geohackers.in/content/howto.html. Please go through it and leave your comments/suggestions. where is the map you created? The map is here http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=11.32007lon=75.93383zoom=17 But this is the first attempt, hence the map is incomplete, the quality of work is very poor. The document is a step forward to improve the quality. Regards. -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Senior Project Officer NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ ___ Talk-in mailing list Talk-in@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in -- Sajjad Anwar http://sajjad.in +91 9995 19 13 12 ___ Talk-in mailing list Talk-in@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in
Re: [Talk-in] new tag for auto stand
On Tuesday 24 Nov 2009 2:30:41 pm PlaneMad wrote: how about this with a green indicator. so green=prepaid, no problems blue=meter red=non metered, prepare to fight :) kenneth can you post a link if it shows up on the map, id like to know how it looks it did not show up on the map - then I found that the size is 169x169 - should have been 16x16. and autos are not blue anyway. Let us see if it shows up now. -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Senior Project Officer NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ ___ Talk-in mailing list Talk-in@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in
Re: [Talk-in] Mapping Party howto document
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 5:42 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.orgwrote: On Wednesday 25 Nov 2009 11:09:51 pm Sajjad Anwar wrote: On Wednesday 25 Nov 2009 8:50:15 pm Sajjad Anwar wrote: We recently had a very good experience getting involved in the OpenStreetMap project through a mapping party. The event was really interesting. As a part of the promotion of OpenStreetMap in and around Kerala, we are planning to organize a series of mapping parties. From the above party, we have learned how to organize a mapping party and created a document on that. The document is here http://geohackers.in/content/howto.html. Please go through it and leave your comments/suggestions. where is the map you created? The map is here http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=11.32007amp;lon=75.93383amp;zoom=17 But this is the first attempt, hence the map is incomplete, the quality of work is very poor. The document is a step forward to improve the quality. I think you have totally missed the point of mapping - the idea of openstreetmap is to produce usable maps. Not to have parties. As far as I can see you have not touched the map since your party. And people who see your map will laugh at you - and laugh at OSM. Mapping is an activity that has to take place every day. And remember, it is a *street* map - which means it must show streets, roads and pathways. It must show buildings. I see a mini canteen there. How does one get to it? No road? not even a footpath? And how do the ladies get to their hostel? It is not even necessary to have a GPS instrument to sketch these things in. You have an outline. Now fill in the buildings, sketch the streets, paths, gardens, trees. Even if it is not precise, when you get an instrument you can correct it. For the last few months you have been talking about your party - and how you are going to hold parties in all the engineering colleges in Kerala. Please stop talking and writing documents - and start mapping. If you want to know how a map should look like, refer to the examples Prof Rai and I have shown you. I understand your points very well. We are reworking on the map. -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Senior Project Officer NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ ___ Talk-in mailing list Talk-in@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in -- Sajjad Anwar http://sajjad.in +91 9995 19 13 12 ___ Talk-in mailing list Talk-in@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in
Re: [Talk-in] Mapping Party howto document
On Thursday 26 Nov 2009 9:59:56 am Sajjad Anwar wrote: get an instrument you can correct it. For the last few months you have been talking about your party - and how you are going to hold parties in all the engineering colleges in Kerala. Please stop talking and writing documents - and start mapping. If you want to know how a map should look like, refer to the examples Prof Rai and I have shown you. I understand your points very well. We are reworking on the map. cool -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Senior Project Officer NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ ___ Talk-in mailing list Talk-in@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in
Re: [Talk-in] new tag for auto stand
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org wrote: and can anyone see an auto here: http://xlquest.net/?zoom=20lat=13.08205lon=80.27449layers=B I do not know if it is not displaying - or the cache is interfering. I can see the auto. Kushal -- http://fedoraproject.org http://kushaldas.in ___ Talk-in mailing list Talk-in@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in
Re: [Talk-in] Mapping Party howto document
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Guillaume Audirac guillaume.audi...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Sajjad, where is the map you created? The map is here http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=11.32007lon=75.93383zoom=17 But this is the first attempt, hence the map is incomplete, the quality of work is very poor. The document is a step forward to improve the quality. Indeed the quality is poor, but I guess you have subscribed to this mailing list to improve it ? Exactly. OpenStreetMap is a great project, but it requires initially a deep dive in the wiki (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Main_Page) to understand what to do, what to avoid. To understand also that it may take a few hours for your changes to be updated on the Mapnik rendering (or more depending on the zoom scale), to understand that you should not tag for the rendering but to reflect the reality. Try to see what others do in some nicely-mapped area. And feel free to ask your questions or doubts on the mailing list. Yes. The map we created is not actually totally rendered. I wonder what went wrong. We are reworking on the data with the new subset from OSM and will come up here with queries. Some useful tool like KeepRight can help you to fix some basic mistakes (updated once a week I guess): http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?db=osm_XDzoom=16lat=11.31964lon=75.93473layers=B00Tch=0show_ign=0show_tmpign=0 (the Permalink allows you to bookmark a specific location in updating the URL) Thank you for this tip. The KeepRight tool is going to be of great help. You can also use JOSM and the validator plugin to check the basic errors before uploading. Some mistakes are very basic and cannot make use of the map for routing purpose for example: crossing roads with ways not connected. Or they are unappropriate like building=yes on a single node (use a closed-way for this tag) or replace it with landuse=residential for example. Refer often to the *Map Features* page to know the most common tags and attributes: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features, and also how to combine them. We'll try them. I personally don't try to map everything and everyday, but what I find useful for me and others. Greetings, Guillaume ___ Talk-in mailing list Talk-in@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in -- Sajjad Anwar http://sajjad.in +91 9995 19 13 12 ___ Talk-in mailing list Talk-in@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in
Re: [Talk-in] new tag for auto stand
On Thursday 26 Nov 2009 11:52:02 am H.S.Rai wrote: and can anyone see an auto here: http://xlquest.net/?zoom=20amp;lat=13.08205amp;lon=80.27449amp;layers= B Yes, here is screen shot: http://gndec.ac.in/~hsrai/tmp/osmAuto.png your site is not loading for me. -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Senior Project Officer NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ ___ Talk-in mailing list Talk-in@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in
Re: [Talk-in] Mapping Party howto document
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.orgwrote: On Thursday 26 Nov 2009 10:08:56 am Srikanth Lakshmanan wrote: Even when you have instrument, it is ideal to actually map with the gps data collected *on the same day* to get a better map.Something we experienced through E-City Mapping party / Hosur Mapping party.Output of E-City map is much better. So ideally any mapping party should have minimum of 2 hours where participants map them out. This way new comers to party also get to learn how to map. that is true - but the point I am trying to emphasise is that mapping is a daily activity. Every time you look at the map you can add something - a dustbin, a lamp post, a speed breaker on the road. Agree. Evolving the wiki way through incremental improvements is ideal instead of mapping once and leaving it. -- Regards Srikanth.L http://www.google.com/profiles/srik.lak ___ Talk-in mailing list Talk-in@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in
Re: [Talk-in] Mapping Party howto document
On Thursday 26 Nov 2009 12:43:19 pm Srikanth Lakshmanan wrote: that is true - but the point I am trying to emphasise is that mapping is a daily activity. Every time you look at the map you can add something - a dustbin, a lamp post, a speed breaker on the road. Agree. Evolving the wiki way through incremental improvements is ideal instead of mapping once and leaving it. there is already a remarkable improvement in their map! -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Senior Project Officer NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ ___ Talk-in mailing list Talk-in@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in
Re: [Talk-it] Uploadare icone su OSM subversion repository
ordunque, si possono caricare le icone su: http://trac.openstreetmap.org/browser/applications/share/map-icons ? e se si, come? ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] Uploadare icone su OSM subversion repository
2009/11/25 Fabri erfab...@gmail.com ordunque, si possono caricare le icone su: http://trac.openstreetmap.org/browser/applications/share/map-icons ? e se si, come? chiedere a qualcuno chi ha permesso di uploadare o richiedere te permesso di accesso al SVN. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/SVN Cmq. non hai ancora risposto: si tratta di icone creati da te? ciao, Martin ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] [ot] buon netbook, secondo chi fa informazione geografica libera
2009/11/25 andrea giacomelli pibi...@gmail.com: [scusandomi per i cross posting] ciao - ricordo che vidi il primo netbook dal vivo al mapping party di Arezzo, nelle mani del Prof. Niccolò Rigacci..bei tempi.. era il primo modello EEE PC. in un anno e mezzo mi pare che ci sia stata la solita proliferazione di proposte (e comunque ho visto alcune giuste migliorie) volevo chiedervi qual è secondo voi un buon netbook per fare informazione geografica libera. non punterei al modello di punta...qualcosa che abbia una batteria che dura quanto dichiara e buone forme di connettività, più quello che saprete voi. vi ringrazio per il consiglio; ho girato qualche negozio, ma resto sistematicamente disorientato, e Babbo Natale si avvicina... Valuterei la possibilità di inserire una scheda di espansione mini pci express per il modulo GPS. un saluto andrea http://www.pibinko.org ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it -- - Pedretti Stefano stefano.pedre...@gmail.com PGP Fingerprint: 5B00129E http://paroledisilicio.wordpress.com Skype : ste.pedro83 mobile: +393292348186 - Sent from Bologna, BO, Italy ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] rotonda errata
Il giorno 25 novembre 2009 08.58, brunetto brunetto.zi...@gmail.com ha scritto: vi sembrerà impossibile ma la salita inizia con le rotonde... se può essere utile posso buttar su un paio di foto.. in lista o sulla mappa (cosa che però non so bene come fare..) Sì, qualche foto è utile. Puoi metterle su un servizio di hosting tipo http://imageshack.us/ per non intasare le caselle degli utenti che non sono interessati (o non hanno la banda larga), e limitarti a passare qui il link. mi viene un dubbio ora: bridge va messo a tutto il ponte o solo alla parte senza terra sotto, quindi escludendo le rampe di salita e discesa che sono inclinate ma hanno ancora la terra sotto? nel senso: la salita e la discesa da un ponte fanno parte della struttura del ponte, ma non sono sospese (sotto hanno terra o piloni..) In genere cerco di usare bridge solo in corrispondenza (più o meno) delle campate del ponte. Per indicare che una strada sta sopra ad un'altra (o più in generale sopra il piano di campagna) basta il tag layer=n, con n di quello delle alte strade (o del piano di campagna, che di default è = 0). ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] tag per mensa universitaria
Sarebbe quindi: amenity=canteen + i vari tag di restrizione da mettere a punto quindi in definitiva come taggo? devo mettere qualcosa nel wiki? brunetto ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] rotonda errata
Sì, qualche foto è utile. Puoi metterle su un servizio di hosting tipo http://imageshack.us/ per non intasare le caselle degli utenti che non sono interessati (o non hanno la banda larga), e limitarti a passare qui il link. appena riesco provvedo brunetto ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] rotonda errata
2009/11/25 brunetto brunetto.zi...@gmail.com: mi viene un dubbio ora: bridge va messo a tutto il ponte o solo alla parte senza terra sotto, quindi escludendo le rampe di salita e discesa che sono inclinate ma hanno ancora la terra sotto? nel senso: la salita e la discesa da un ponte fanno parte della struttura del ponte, ma non sono sospese (sotto hanno terra o piloni..) Il wiki è chiaro se lo sai decifrare :-) Mark the beginning of the bridge (abutment) by a node Se non sai cosa sono gli abutment, sei in buona compagnia :-) Ecco la soluzione: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abutment In pratica è bridge solo la parte sospesa. Tutto quello che ha terra sotto NON è bridge. Ho ritrovato questa convenzione anche su uno stradario di Milano, quindi magari ha diffusa in ambito cartografico. Ciao, Federico ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] rotonda errata
In pratica e` bridge solo la parte sospesa. Tutto quello che ha terra sotto NON e` bridge. Ho ritrovato questa convenzione anche su uno stradario di Milano, quindi magari ha diffusa in ambito cartografico. Si, certo. Il ponte in cartografia e` la parte sospesa, segnata con questo simbolo: \___/ da enbrambi i lati della strada come a delimitarla. Il concetto e` che per tutta la lunghezza del ponte non si puo` scavalcare senza cadere di sotto. La strada sollevata sul piano di campagna circostante si chiama in massicciata (quella piu` in basso del piano di campagna in trincea), ed e` segnata con dei triangolini all'esterno della strada (punta dalla parte a quota piu` bassa, l'idea e` di dare l'aspetto grafico dei contrafforti). Questo naturalmente solo da 1:5 in su. /alessandro ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] rotonda errata
se le convenzioni son queste non si discute!:-P allora tolgo bridge dalle rotonde (appena ho due secondi le fotografo pure) e magari e taggo come massicciata, solo che embankmen me lo dà per la ferrovia... va bene uguale? brunetto Il 25 novembre 2009 15.16, Alessandro Rubini rubini-l...@gnudd.com ha scritto: In pratica e` bridge solo la parte sospesa. Tutto quello che ha terra sotto NON e` bridge. Ho ritrovato questa convenzione anche su uno stradario di Milano, quindi magari ha diffusa in ambito cartografico. Si, certo. Il ponte in cartografia e` la parte sospesa, segnata con questo simbolo: \___/ da enbrambi i lati della strada come a delimitarla. Il concetto e` che per tutta la lunghezza del ponte non si puo` scavalcare senza cadere di sotto. La strada sollevata sul piano di campagna circostante si chiama in massicciata (quella piu` in basso del piano di campagna in trincea), ed e` segnata con dei triangolini all'esterno della strada (punta dalla parte a quota piu` bassa, l'idea e` di dare l'aspetto grafico dei contrafforti). Questo naturalmente solo da 1:5 in su. ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] tag per mensa universitaria
Il 25/11/2009 14:00, brunetto ha scritto: Sarebbe quindi: amenity=canteen + i vari tag di restrizione da mettere a punto quindi in definitiva come taggo? devo mettere qualcosa nel wiki? Per ora puoi accontentarti di mettere amenity=canteen. Ovviamente però non sarà renderizzato. -- .' `. | Registered Linux User #443882 |a_a | | http://counter.li.org/ .''`. \_)__/ +--- : :' : /( )\ ---+ `. `'` |\` /\ Registered Debian User #9 | `- \_|=='|_/ http://debiancounter.altervista.org/ | ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] tag per mensa universitaria
2009/11/25 Carlo Stemberger carlo.stember...@gmail.com Il 25/11/2009 14:00, brunetto ha scritto: Sarebbe quindi: amenity=canteen + i vari tag di restrizione da mettere a punto quindi in definitiva come taggo? devo mettere qualcosa nel wiki? Per ora puoi accontentarti di mettere amenity=canteen. Ovviamente però non sarà renderizzato. ma no, metti anche una paginetta nel wiki, cosí si ritrova più facilmente. Se vuoi, puoi anche scrivere un proposal e chiedere commenti in talk (la lista principale in inglese, scrivi un messaggio con RFC (che significa Request for comments)). Dopo una fase di discussione (in generale 2-3 settimane) mandi un altra mail a talk per cominciare le votazioni. Il processo è descritto nel Wiki (proposal). Quando è approvato preghi i smanettoni di mapnik di inserire il tag nelle regole di rendering. Nel frattempo qualcuno (se non te) avra fatto delle regole per t...@h e viendra renderizzato. ciao, Martin ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] Uploadare icone su OSM subversion repository
Martin Koppenhoefer ha scritto: 2009/11/25 Fabri erfab...@gmail.com ordunque, si possono caricare le icone su: http://trac.openstreetmap.org/browser/applications/share/map-icons ? e se si, come? chiedere a qualcuno chi ha permesso di uploadare o richiedere te permesso di accesso al SVN. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/SVN Cmq. non hai ancora risposto: si tratta di icone creati da te? ciao, Martin si, fatte da me e rilasciate con licenza Public Domain. -- www.openstreetmap.org - Io mappo il mio quartiere, tu mappi il tuo, tutti quanti insieme mappiamo l'intero pianeta ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] Uploadare icone su OSM subversion repository
2009/11/26 Fabri erfab...@gmail.com si, fatte da me e rilasciate con licenza Public Domain. hai trovato qualcuno? Se no chiedo nella lista tedesca, si trova sempre qualcuno chi te lo fa... (Certo, se vuoi contribuire più spesso vale anche la pena di richiedere accesso diretto) Ciao, Martin ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-dk] Forslag til retningslinjer for cykelstier
On 24/11/2009, at 23.50, Freek wrote: First of all I don't like to bump over kantsten with my citybike, so I don't see them as passible. Heh, jeg bryder mig heller ikke om at køre over kantsten... men kommunens folk laver dog ofte nedkørsler af afsalt som jeg gerne benytter. Furthermore, I see too many situations (for example on the ring road in Århus) where cycletracks that are separated from the main road by a grass strip need separate ways in order to get the way- topology correct (mostly because of access to sideways). I think it would be strange to make half of the cycleway segments into separate ways and the other half into cycleway=track just to get as many cycleway=track's as possible without ruining the topology. Jeg er enig i at det vel være uhensigtsmæssigt (og svært at vedligeholde) hvis man på et stykke vej veksler mellem cycleway=* og skyggeveje for hver 100 meter, og her må mapperen benytte sin sunde fornuft. Situationen du beskriver (græsstribe mellem vej og cykelsti) ligner dog meget den Wiki'en anbefaler at mærke med cycleway=track [0]. (I øvrigt er der en fejl i wikien for cycleway=track bliver ikke renderet på den måde der er vist.) Det er dog problematisk at bruge tilstedeværelse af en stribe græs som afgørende for beskrivelsen i OSM, da man ofte ser cykelstier hvor det veksler mellem græsstribe og kantsten. Men vi *mangler* faktisk en tag til at beskrive den *mest* almindelige cykelstikonstruktion i Danmark, nemlig hvor cykelstien adskilles fra bilernes kørebane med en kantsten. Jeg vil foreslå at vi bliver enige om at introducere en ny tag: cycleway=curb (Se [1] for definition af ordet curb.) Vi kan derefter henvende os til OSM, fortælle at danske OSM'er er enige om dette og bede om at få det optaget på listen af godkendte tags. Det vil være med til at afhjælpe forvirringen, idet ordet track faktisk antyder et separat spor, som også billedet på Wikien viser. There are surely more such elaborate reasons for making cycleways separate, which is why I would like to have a use your (common) sense kind-of statement in the text. +1 -- Morten [0] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Cycleway [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curb_(road) ___ Talk-dk mailing list Talk-dk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-dk
Re: [Talk-dk] Forslag til retningslinjer for cykelstier
Den 25. nov. 2009 09.45 skrev Morten Kjeldgaard m...@bioxray.dk: On 24/11/2009, at 23.50, Freek wrote: First of all I don't like to bump over kantsten with my citybike, so I don't see them as passible. Heh, jeg bryder mig heller ikke om at køre over kantsten... men kommunens folk laver dog ofte nedkørsler af afsalt som jeg gerne benytter. Beskrivelsen skulle gerne beskrive den fælles holdning til, hvordan man gør. Hvis vi har mappere, der synes at kantsten er svært passable, mens andre ikke gør, får vi en meget forskellig mapning af en meget almindelig situation. Måske er Mortens forslag om en curb-tag ikke så tosset. Så kan f.eks. rutefindere vælge om den anser kantsten for at være en barriere eller ej. Jeg er enig i at det vel være uhensigtsmæssigt (og svært at vedligeholde) hvis man på et stykke vej veksler mellem cycleway=* og skyggeveje for hver 100 meter, og her må mapperen benytte sin sunde fornuft. Situationen du beskriver (græsstribe mellem vej og cykelsti) ligner dog meget den Wiki'en anbefaler at mærke med cycleway=track [0]. (I øvrigt er der en fejl i wikien for cycleway=track bliver ikke renderet på den måde der er vist.) Det er dog problematisk at bruge tilstedeværelse af en stribe græs som afgørende for beskrivelsen i OSM, da man ofte ser cykelstier hvor det veksler mellem græsstribe og kantsten. Nu forstår jeg (vistnok) bedre. Når nogle af jer snakker om at græsstriber skal/kan udløse skyggestier, har det så i virkeligheden mindre med græsset at gøre - og mere med en bestemt type vej med tilbagetrukne cykelstier ved hvert kryds? Og at I ikke synes at man bør skifte til skyggestier 10 meter på hver side af hvert eneste kryds? Hvis det er rigtigt forstået, er kodeordet i mit forslag strækning. Her vil det efter min mening være op til mapperen at vurdere, om et vejstykke fyldt med tilbagetrækninger ved en masse sideveje kan vurderes at være en samlet strækning, der ikke følger vejens forløb - og dermed skal mappes som een lang separat cycleway. There are surely more such elaborate reasons for making cycleways separate, which is why I would like to have a use your (common) sense kind-of statement in the text. +1 Jep, vi kan ikke beskrive alt, men bør så vidt muligt dække alle almindelige forhold. -- -- Civilingeniør ph.d. Claus Hindsgaul Edvard Thomsens Vej 19, 5. th DK-2300 KBH S ___ Talk-dk mailing list Talk-dk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-dk
[Talk-dk] Svar: Re: Forslag til retningslinjer for cykelstier
Hej. Vores kortlægning handler i bund og grund om at givecyklisten et praj om hvad han skal forvente, når han cykler ad en vej. Et kort skal ikke dokumentere alle detaljer i virkeligheden, kun de detaljer, der er nødvendige for at orientere sig. Hvis vi markerer en cykelsti som et track på en bilvej (highway=unclassified, cycleway=track) så vil cyklisten næppe tro at cykelstien fortsætter ubrudt over et vejkryds. Han ved godt at der sker noget specielt ved vejkryds, så en detailmarkering ville være en forstyrrende detalje. Det vil ikke bidrage til overblikket. Så er der steder hvor cykelstien trækker sig 10 meter til siden for at passere en krydsende vej udenfor krydset, og for at give cyklisten vigepligt. Her bør kortet nok vise de faktiske forhold, dvs. en highway=cycleway. Både for at forberede cyklisten, og for at give ham en generel tillid til at alle detaljer er med i kortet. Et tag som Morten foreslår, kunne være en ide. Jeg ved ikke lige hvordan tracks og curbeds vil adskille sig, bortset fra det vejledningsbillede der ligger i wikien. Her er cykelstien dobbeltrettet i den ene side, og hvis det er den oprindelige ide med "track", så skal vi helt klart have en ny tag. Hvordan markerer vi bedst en cykelsti; som tilføjelse på en vej, eller som separat highway? Min holdning er at vi skal lade maskinerne arbejde. Hvis det er muligt, skal vi tilføje cykelstien til bilvejen, og lade rendereren om at markere stien. Derved får vi automatisk lagt forløb og navn på cykelstien, hvilket er smart af hensyn til routing-softwaren. Cyklisten skulle gerne have at vide, at han skal "dreje til højre ad Amagerbrogade", ikke "dreje til højre ad separat cykelsti" Et par detaljer: Cyclewayen bør hedde "curbed", ikke "curb". En curb er selve kanten. Og forslaget om at tegne en skyggesti og markere bilvejen med cycleway=no, synes jeg ikke duer. Færdselsloven siger at man ikke må cykle på cykelstien, hvis cyklen, evt. en anhænger, fylder for meget. Derfor skal cycleway=no ikke bruges, med mindre det drejer sig om motorvej eller motortrafikvej. Så er det op tilrouting-softwaren at finde cykelstien i stedet for vejen. Så, nu har jeg vist tømt minbuffer :-) mvh. Erik Klausen___ Talk-dk mailing list Talk-dk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-dk
Re: [Talk-dk] Svar: Re: Forslag til retningslinjer for cykelstier
On 25/11/2009, at 10.46, Erik Klausen wrote: Et par detaljer: Cyclewayen bør hedde curbed, ikke curb. En curb er selve kanten. Hmm. Jeg kan godt se pointen, idet man jo ikke cykler på selve kantstenen. Derimod cykler man på selve lane'n og track'en. Imidlertid kan jeg ikke finde dokumentation for at adjektivformen curbed i betydningen noget der er afgrænset af en kantsten findes på engelsk. Min ordbog nævner kun ordet curb som substantiv og verbum. Det kunne blive mere præcist ved at vælge curb_delimited (kantsten afgrænset), eller man kunne vælge blot delimited, som også kunne benyttes til at definere andre former for afgrænsninger som vi ikke i øjeblikket kender til. Endelig kunne man forestille sig det mere omstændelige (men også mere udtryksfulde): cycleway=yes delimited=curb Her kunne delimited=* ligeledes bruges til at beskrive andre muligheder, f.ex. grass, fence o.lign. Men så bliver foreslaget jo ret omfattende. Måske skulle vi lade os råde af vore engelske kolleger? Mvh, Morten ___ Talk-dk mailing list Talk-dk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-dk
Re: [Talk-dk] Forslag til retningslinjer for cykelstier
On Wednesday 25 November 2009 10:11:33 Claus Hindsgaul wrote: Den 25. nov. 2009 09.45 skrev Morten Kjeldgaard m...@bioxray.dk: On 24/11/2009, at 23.50, Freek wrote: First of all I don't like to bump over kantsten with my citybike, so I don't see them as passible. Heh, jeg bryder mig heller ikke om at køre over kantsten... men kommunens folk laver dog ofte nedkørsler af afsalt som jeg gerne benytter. Beskrivelsen skulle gerne beskrive den fælles holdning til, hvordan man gør. Hvis vi har mappere, der synes at kantsten er svært passable, mens andre ikke gør, får vi en meget forskellig mapning af en meget almindelig situation. Måske er Mortens forslag om en curb-tag ikke så tosset. Så kan f.eks. rutefindere vælge om den anser kantsten for at være en barriere eller ej. Yes, I also think a cycleway=curb (or kerb or whatever it will finally be) tag would be useful. Jeg er enig i at det vel være uhensigtsmæssigt (og svært at vedligeholde) hvis man på et stykke vej veksler mellem cycleway=* og skyggeveje for hver 100 meter, og her må mapperen benytte sin sunde fornuft. Situationen du beskriver (græsstribe mellem vej og cykelsti) ligner dog meget den Wiki'en anbefaler at mærke med cycleway=track [0]. (I øvrigt er der en fejl i wikien for cycleway=track bliver ikke renderet på den måde der er vist.) Det er dog problematisk at bruge tilstedeværelse af en stribe græs som afgørende for beskrivelsen i OSM, da man ofte ser cykelstier hvor det veksler mellem græsstribe og kantsten. Nu forstår jeg (vistnok) bedre. Når nogle af jer snakker om at græsstriber skal/kan udløse skyggestier, har det så i virkeligheden mindre med græsset at gøre - og mere med en bestemt type vej med tilbagetrukne cykelstier ved hvert kryds? Og at I ikke synes at man bør skifte til skyggestier 10 meter på hver side af hvert eneste kryds? Hvis det er rigtigt forstået, er kodeordet i mit forslag strækning. Her vil det efter min mening være op til mapperen at vurdere, om et vejstykke fyldt med tilbagetrækninger ved en masse sideveje kan vurderes at være en samlet strækning, der ikke følger vejens forløb - og dermed skal mappes som een lang separat cycleway. I was not really thinking about that situation here, but indeed I think such a situation (tilbagetrukne cykelstier ved hvert kryds) should currently be tagged either as a separate cycleway, or as cycleway=track/kerb on the main road all the way, and not mix them up. In both cases one could go further and break up the cycleway or road at the places where the cycleway-type changes and put cycleway=track/kerb on the relevant segments, although I would not yet go so far. In general, tagging can be made more precise later, we don't need to go all the way from the start (anyone started mapping dustbins in Denmark?). -- Freek ___ Talk-dk mailing list Talk-dk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-dk
Re: [Talk-dk] Svar: Re: Forslag til retningslinjer for cykelstier
Jesper Henriksen wrote: Det kunne blive mere præcist ved at vælge curb_delimited (kantsten afgrænset), eller man kunne vælge blot delimited, som også kunne benyttes til at definere andre former for afgrænsninger som vi ikke i øjeblikket kender til. Endelig kunne man forestille sig det mere omstændelige (men også mere udtryksfulde): cycleway=yes delimited=curb Hmm, interessant forslag. Men så mangler man vel en form for relation med vejen? Alene de tags siger jo ikke noget om hvilken side kantstenen er på, eller hvilken vej kantstenen er ud imod. En cykelsti med kantsten er vel sådan set en del af vejens opbygning, og det bør derfor være markeret at de to ting hænger sammen. Det er en tag på selve vejen, som så bliver f.ex. highway=tertiary cycleway=yes delimited=curb Alternativt: highway=tertiary cycleway=delimited_curb (eller curbed/curb/foobar) Freek wrote: Yes, I also think a cycleway=curb (or kerb or whatever it will finally be) tag would be useful. I actually thought it was dutch at first ;-) but I realize now that kerb is british english (AFAICS) so I am sure they would be pleased over there. rant They have already polluted the OSM namespace with their funny, strictly british nomenclature. For example the whole world is forced to adopt the british road classification scheme./rant Personally, I prefer curb which is also international english. -- Morten ___ Talk-dk mailing list Talk-dk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-dk
Re: [Talk-dk] Tilbagerulning af Niels Becks data
Hej! Jamen jeg har så med glæde fulgt den livlige debat om de forskellige muligheder og problemer der ligger i markeringen af oplysninger vedrørende cykelstier! Det var nu ikke for at starte den debat jeg oprindeligt lagde ud, noget drastisk som een skrev på dette sted! Men jeg vil faktisk gerne ud af denne blindgyde på en positiv måde uden at dem der står for enden af gaden med køllen slår alt for hårdt! Jeg har det hgetl fint med at tulle mine cykelstieer tilbage de ligger under ændringsbetegnelsen lane, og starte forfra ud fra en noglelunde fælles akceptabel retningslinie! Jeg ligger inde med stor viden om Københavns og Sjællands cykelstier og er kun interesseret i et stykke arbejde af god kvalitet teknisk set! Og som kan bruges på uddatasiden. Vh. Niels Den 24. nov. 2009 23.20 skrev Claus Hindsgaul claus.hindsg...@gmail.com: Den 24. nov. 2009 20.53 skrev Carsten Nielsen list_re...@toensberg.dk: At man forstår at at data skal være korrekte og ikke korrigerede af hensyn til en bestem renderer, eller for den sags skyld en bestemt rute beregner, er vigtigt ja. At kræve at nogen skal erklære at de har misforstået noget mener jeg er at gå for vidt og begynder snarere at ligne at man går efter manden i stedet for bolden. Jeg er helt enig med Carsten i, at der har været nogle upassende affekt-udfald imod Niels her på listen. Han har godt nok kunnet virke øretæveindbydende til tider, og sikkert også mere end han selv har følt og ønsket. Jeg synes, man bør prøve at se ud over den slags, selv holde en god tone og gemytterne i ro. Så bliver det sjovere for alle at være med. Lad os nu spille med bolden. Claus -- -- Civilingeniør ph.d. Claus Hindsgaul Edvard Thomsens Vej 19, 5. th DK-2300 KBH S ___ Talk-dk mailing list Talk-dk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-dk -- Niels John Beck N. Jespersensvej 10 3.tv. 2000 Frederiksberg DK - Denmark Mobil +45 60605235 ___ Talk-dk mailing list Talk-dk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-dk
Re: [Talk-dk] Forslag til retningslinjer for cykelstier
Claus Hindsgaul skrev: Hvad synes I da selv, der bør gælde specielt for græsstriber, og hvorfor giver det et bedre kortmateriale? Kunne man alternativt skelne mellem, om der er indlagt en væsentlig afstand mellem vej og cykelsti (f.eks. over 3 meter?), selvom den er passabel? Jeg har svært ved at se/sætte en skarp grænse for hvornår en cykelsti skal være en separat way, men det er fint med nogle tommelfinger regler at gå efter. Jeg mener at en græs rabat på 3 meter bør berettige til en separat way, da risikoen for påkørsel fra biler er væsentlig anderledes end ved en cykelsti der blot er markeret med en stribe. Jeg kan også godt se at en cykelsti der kun er adskilt far vejen af en kantsten eller 30 cm græs kan betegnes som en attribut på vejen, men sikkerheds mæssigt er der for mig stadig en væsentlig forskel i forhold til en cykelstribe der er malet på vejen. Det er muligt at curb eller lignende er en løsning på problemet, jeg tror dog ikke jeg kommer til at bruge den, jeg har nok i at trace vejene og cykelstierne, men det ændrer jo ikke ved at det kan være den rigtige løsning. For mig er det ikke vigtigt om det gøres på den ene eller den anden måde, jeg gør det efter men bedste vurdering i det enkelte tilfælde og accepterer så at nogen ændrer/retter det hvsi de mener det er mere korrekt på den anden måde. Carsten / ablansinger ___ Talk-dk mailing list Talk-dk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-dk
Re: [Talk-dk] Tilbagerulning af Niels Becks data
Hej Niels, Det vil være godt at have dig med på holdet igen. Du har været inde og lave et stort antal forbindelser og knudepunkter, og jeg tror umiddelbart det vil være det sikreste at tage dine ændringer ud af databasen frem for manuelt at slette ways og knudepunkter. Er du enig i dette? Claus Den 25. nov. 2009 16.03 skrev Niels Beck nielsb...@gmail.com: Hej! Jamen jeg har så med glæde fulgt den livlige debat om de forskellige muligheder og problemer der ligger i markeringen af oplysninger vedrørende cykelstier! Det var nu ikke for at starte den debat jeg oprindeligt lagde ud, noget drastisk som een skrev på dette sted! Men jeg vil faktisk gerne ud af denne blindgyde på en positiv måde uden at dem der står for enden af gaden med køllen slår alt for hårdt! Jeg har det hgetl fint med at tulle mine cykelstieer tilbage de ligger under ændringsbetegnelsen lane, og starte forfra ud fra en noglelunde fælles akceptabel retningslinie! Jeg ligger inde med stor viden om Københavns og Sjællands cykelstier og er kun interesseret i et stykke arbejde af god kvalitet teknisk set! Og som kan bruges på uddatasiden. Vh. Niels -- -- Civilingeniør ph.d. Claus Hindsgaul Edvard Thomsens Vej 19, 5. th DK-2300 KBH S ___ Talk-dk mailing list Talk-dk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-dk
[Talk-gb-westmidlands] Chelmsley Wood Saturday 28th November OFF
Hi everyone Andrew has had great difficulty in finding a venue ( events have just conspired against him) so the mapping intro party is OFF. Anyone who'd planned to go - you can go and have fun mapping elsewhere. Sandwell anyone :-) ? Andrew wants to focus on smaller residents groups led by willing community Housing Officers for the time being - we had quite a successful mini-survey last week. Regards Brian ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
[Talk-es] Relacionificadorizador
A las buenas noches, Es muy tarde y las neuronas no me dan para mucho, así que seré breve: Quien estuviera buscando una herramienta para convertir datos vectoriales a formato OSM y además hacer relaciones de los polígonos complejos o de polígonos que compartan algunos de sus lados (el mítico relacionificadorizador), que le eche un vistazo a: http://svn.openstreetmap.org/applications/utils/import/ogr2osm/ Vistas las horas que son, seguro que está plagado de bugs. Y además hace falta especificarle a pelo los ficheros y el tipo de fichero que lee. Y no es capaz de traducir atributos a tags. Pero toda la funcionalidad básica debería funcionar bien, salvo errores topológicos bestias en los datos de entrada. Nasnoches, -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es You will gain money by a fattening action. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Talk-es mailing list Talk-es@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es
Re: [Talk-at] Wiener ÖPNV in Best of OSM
Andreas M. wrote: mir ist gerade aufgefallen, dass die ÖPNV-Ansicht von Wien in der Best of OSM gelandet ist, Ja, es gab auf der SOTM'09 sogar ein Plakat, wo das drauf war... :) Servus, Andreas ___ Talk-at mailing list Talk-at@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at
Re: [Talk-at] Gipfelkreuz versus Gipfel
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:36:19 +0100, Boris Cornet bo...@psion2.org wrote: Das Prinzip von Karten - speziell Wanderkarten - ist es, Orientierungspunkte zu schaffen. Also erscheint es mir nur logisch und richtig, Bergkreuze, die sich nicht nahe des Gipfels befinden, auch einzuzeichnen. Das war auch mein Gedanke. Allerdings warum nicht auch Kreuze die sich direkt am Gipfel befinden? Taggen würde ich das mit: man_made=summit_cross Das rendert aber noch niemand? Ich habe mich jetzt eine Zeitlang durch tagwatch und Mappingfeatures gewühlt - und bin verwirrt. Ist es tatsächlich so dass bisher noch niemand auf die Idee gekommen ist sich Gipfelkreuze auf den Karten zu wünschen? Sollen wir jeden 'natural=peak' mit einem Gipfelkreuz nun zusätzlich mit einem 'man_made=summit_cross' taggen? Es gibt ja auch noch eine Unmenge an Gipfel die kein Kreuz haben. Andi ___ Talk-at mailing list Talk-at@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at
Re: [Talk-at] Geoland.at stellt öffentlichen WMS z ur Verfügung - next steps?
Hello World ;-) Heute (25. November) um 19:15 hat Helge getippt: Was muss man tun, damit das (geoland-WMS) standardmäßig im Poltlatch zur Verfügung steht (zb. im Map-Background-Dropdown)? Tests mit Custom haben nicht funktioniert, Test in Merkaartor angeblich schon. Angeblich?? Hast wer irgend welche Infos, oder Links zu Anleitungen? Ich habe keine Ahnung, wie ich das anstellen soll. Unter Merkaator (Version 0.13.2 - IMHO die einzig brauchbare derzeit) finde ich keinen Einstellungsdialog, und die Configdatei kapiere ich auch nicht (siehe Anhang). -- LG, Boris - Anhang: - %userprofile%\.merkaartor\WmsServersList.xml (Default-Configdatei von Merkaartor) WmsServersList.xml Description: XML document ___ Talk-at mailing list Talk-at@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at
Re: [Talk-at] Geoland.at stellt öffentlichen WMS z ur Verfügung - next steps?
Helge Fahrnberger wrote: Was muss man tun, damit das standardmäßig im Poltlatch zur Verfügung steht (zb. im Map-Background-Dropdown)? Potlatch braucht Tiles. Ich bin in Kontakt mit Sven Geggus, der so ein WMS-to-Tile-Gateway schon mal (soweit ich weiß für die Oberpfalz) implementiert hat. Zuvor muß aber die Nutzung geklärt werden. Was Georg Holzer schreibt: Mir wurde aber gesagt, dass die nicht-kommerzielle Nutzung explizit erlaubt sein wird. -- Das nutzt uns nix. OSM ist (dzt.) CC-BY-SA, und das eben egal ob kommerziell oder nicht (auch die ODbL änderte daran nix). In den endgültigen Nutzungsbedingungen soll der Gebrauch für OpenStreetMap explizit gestattet werden. -- Wenn das Abzeichnen explizit erlaubt ist, dann wäre das fein. Servus, Andreas ___ Talk-at mailing list Talk-at@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at
Re: [Talk-at] Gipfelkreuz versus Gipfel
Today (Wednesday, November 25, 2009) at 21:10 Andreas commented: Das Prinzip von Karten - speziell Wanderkarten - ist es, Orientierungspunkte zu schaffen. Also erscheint es mir nur logisch und richtig, Bergkreuze, die sich nicht nahe des Gipfels befinden, auch einzuzeichnen. Das war auch mein Gedanke. Allerdings warum nicht auch Kreuze die sich direkt am Gipfel befinden? Sollen wir jeden 'natural=peak' mit einem Gipfelkreuz nun zusätzlich mit einem 'man_made=summit_cross' taggen? Ja, warum eigentlich nicht? Das ist eine nützliche Information, und es passt ins Tagging Schema (man_made=*). Taggen würde ich das mit: man_made=summit_cross Das rendert aber noch niemand? Wir mappen nicht für die renderer! (duck) Und außerdem ändern sich die stylesheets recht häufig, ich denke z.B. topomap würde da schon reagieren, wenn man_made=summit_cross in tagwatch auffällig würde. Ist es tatsächlich so dass bisher noch niemand auf die Idee gekommen ist sich Gipfelkreuze auf den Karten zu wünschen? Es macht vermutlich Sinn, auf [talk-de] zu fragen... -- LG, Boris ___ Talk-at mailing list Talk-at@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at
Re: [Talk-ca] Useful WMS URL
Cool, Thanks, i'll try it out :) and all the features you see on it are available via. CanVec2osm maybe a bit more. I think that this is handy for local area mappers for sure. The tracing wont be the same as actually copying the geometry directly (the geometry is identical to whats available (it was is the same source), but it might be easier than taking the learning curve and be able to cross-reference that everything means. The icons that nrcan uses are a bit different than what OSM has, and if OSM doesnt have it yet, i have it listed in the chart. Thanks, I'll be broadcasting the method to get the WMS layer on my next tinychat.com/Acrosscanada show :) Just need to remember to add the attribution tag indicating that it came from 'Natural Resources Canada' (adding came from 'geobase' would be incorrect) Indicating that it came from source=toporama would be also great to. I would indicate that on the changeset (hopefully JOSM will have that preset available soon) cheers, Sam P.S. Austin, are there other options for WMS layers? or is this that we have to work with available (as the best available?) On 11/24/09, Austin Henry ahenry-...@canoe.staticcling.org wrote: I thought I'd share A little tidbit that I've been finding useful lately while editing. It's a WMS url for Toporama (aka geogratis data). It is really nice for use in JOSM while tracing GPS tracks. http://wms.ess-ws.nrcan.gc.ca/wms/toporama_en?LAYERS=limits%2Cvegetation%2Cdesignated_areas%2Chydrography%2Chypsography%2Cfeature_namesSERVICE=WMSVERSION=1.1.1REQUEST=GetMapSTYLES=EXCEPTIONS=application%2Fvnd.ogc.se_inimageFORMAT=image%2Fpng; It's got the Limits, Vegetation, Designated Areas, Hydrography, Hypsography and Feature Names layers turned on, and makes a nice base map for me. Their site has lots more information on what all the layers are, in case that list was greek (I was to me until I read their site). peace, Austin. -- Build a man fire, he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca -- Twitter: @Acrosscanada Blog: http://Acrosscanadatrails.blogspot.com Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans Skype: samvekemans OpenStreetMap IRC: http://irc.openstreetmap.org @Acrosscanadatrails ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Competition? New Brunswick launches online map service
Thanks John for finding this news, Hi Daniel, My guess is that Bernie Connors is in contact with your office about implimenting more data from New Brunswick then? I'm also on the talk-au (austrailia) list where reciently their govnt relieced the land parcel data (property boundaries), this was BEFORE roads are available, so it makes for some fun mapping. (they dont know if roads will be available, so its guess work) Anyway, im wondering if we should be in touch with the Fredricton office directly in order tn gain access to the WMS server (shp files prefered),? Or will the CanVec data contain property boundaries as part of the set? I think its easier if its part of the same dataset :) I like how the data (might be) sorted by ownership (private, public) hopefully it would get split up further to: 'residential' 'commercial' 'mixed res comm', 'light industrial' 'industrial', local public, regional, provincial, federal. ... The sub-categories are not infinate, but the are alot. So anyway, whatever becomes available, im sure we'll make use of it. On 11/25/09, john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.itworldcanada.com/news/new-brunswick-launches-online-map-service/139382?sub=327632utm_source=327632utm_medium=dailyitwireutm_campaign=enews Cheerio John ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca -- Twitter: @Acrosscanada Blog: http://Acrosscanadatrails.blogspot.com Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans Skype: samvekemans OpenStreetMap IRC: http://irc.openstreetmap.org @Acrosscanadatrails ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-cz] Zahrady (Re: 5500 duplicitních se gmentů cest)
To není pravda. Pokud jsou dva ploty přes sebe, tak je čára o něco tlustší (málo ale je to znát) - v [1] je blok s šipkou kreslen se zdvojenými ploty, kdežto blok napravo je kreslen s jednoduchými ploty, a zahrada je udělaná jen kolem dokola. To je taky důvod, proč jsem v předchozím příspěvku navrhoval jiné způsoby značení zahrad. Dá se udělat i to, že zahrada není oplocená ze všech stran - stačí udělat multipolygon, a na straně bez oplocení se udělá way bez tagů, která je součástí relace. [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=50.104113mlon=14.377887zoom=18layers=B000FTF On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 06:35:09 +0100, Mike Crash m...@mikecrash.com wrote: Fence nebo wall přece nemusí byt uzavřené a už vůbec by asi nemělo být zdvojené - když tam je jen jeden plot, tak tam má byt jen jednou, navíc dva přes sebe se vykreslí stejně jako jeden. -- Petr Dlouhý ___ Talk-cz mailing list Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
Re: [Talk-cz] Zahrady (Re: 5500 duplicitních se gmentů cest)
Tak toho jsem si doteď nevšiml, každopádně to nic nemění na faktu, že fence je plot a pokud je tam jeden, tak má být jen jeden. Zajímalo by mne, jak je to tam ve skutečnosti, pravděpodobně tam jen jeden je. Přijde mi, že jste si z fence udělali definici zahrady jako pozemku, ale to není. Viz třeba ten dvoubarák na zaslané mapě s číslem 1978 a 1399. Tam jde fence i přes barák, kde ve skutečnosti není a je to tak i vykresleno. Fence má končit na zdi baráku. A zahradu definovat jako multipolygon z toho plotu a zdi baráku. Takto je to špatně. V mapě je toho víc než ve skutečnosti. Petr Dlouhý wrote: To není pravda. Pokud jsou dva ploty přes sebe, tak je čára o něco tlustší (málo ale je to znát) - v [1] je blok s šipkou kreslen se zdvojenými ploty, kdežto blok napravo je kreslen s jednoduchými ploty, a zahrada je udělaná jen kolem dokola. To je taky důvod, proč jsem v předchozím příspěvku navrhoval jiné způsoby značení zahrad. Dá se udělat i to, že zahrada není oplocená ze všech stran - stačí udělat multipolygon, a na straně bez oplocení se udělá way bez tagů, která je součástí relace. [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=50.104113mlon=14.377887zoom=18layers=B000FTF On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 06:35:09 +0100, Mike Crash m...@mikecrash.com wrote: Fence nebo wall přece nemusí byt uzavřené a už vůbec by asi nemělo být zdvojené - když tam je jen jeden plot, tak tam má byt jen jednou, navíc dva přes sebe se vykreslí stejně jako jeden. ___ Talk-cz mailing list Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
Re: [Talk-cz] Zahrady (Re: 5500 duplicitních se gmentů cest)
Je tam jen jeden, a udělal jsem to já. Nevěděl jsem, jak to dělat, a dělal jsem pokusy. Teď už to vím, akorát jsem to ještě nepředělal. Dvoubaráky jsou správně vyřešené například na [1]. Jak jsem napsal - sémanticky správně je, myslím, udělat multipolygon pro každou zahradu, a pokud se s tím nechci tolik patlat, tak udělat jednu zahradu pro celý blok (což se vykresluje stejně. [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=50.102847mlon=14.382457zoom=18layers=B000FTF On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:52:37 +0100, Mike Crash m...@mikecrash.com wrote: Tak toho jsem si doteď nevšiml, každopádně to nic nemění na faktu, že fence je plot a pokud je tam jeden, tak má být jen jeden. Zajímalo by mne, jak je to tam ve skutečnosti, pravděpodobně tam jen jeden je. Přijde mi, že jste si z fence udělali definici zahrady jako pozemku, ale to není. Viz třeba ten dvoubarák na zaslané mapě s číslem 1978 a 1399. Tam jde fence i přes barák, kde ve skutečnosti není a je to tak i vykresleno. Fence má končit na zdi baráku. A zahradu definovat jako multipolygon z toho plotu a zdi baráku. Takto je to špatně. V mapě je toho víc než ve skutečnosti. -- Petr Dlouhý ___ Talk-cz mailing list Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
